• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

tualitin or AMD ?

S

SpeedTrap

Banned
I am thinking of getting a AMD 1.4 which would be the same as im building for a friend.

but if i wait and get the tualitan it will rock on and really right now, i shouldnt toss out 500.00 for a new setup while the tualitin is gonna go for 250.00

what do you all think?

and i will have a Epox 8K7A as the mainboard if i go tbird

ive allready got the 400W enermax on the way
 
WSPTrooper,

$500. Whachu talkin' bout Willus? The whole shebang should cost you around $368. That's:

512 Meg DDR RAM........$125 at Crucial.com
AMD 1.2Ghz at 266........$113 Newegg.com
Epox KT7A....................$130 Newegg.com
---------------------------
$368+shipping

Plus you can overclock nicely!
 
Tualitin is a dead end. With AMD, socketA is gonna stick around for awhile (at least, that's what they've said). While you may be able to upgrade your current board to a Tualitin (assuming it supports it), after that, you've got nothing. With AMD, you should have at least another year (two?) or so of upgrading left without buying a new motherboard etc.
 


<< WSPTrooper,

$500. Whachu talkin' bout Willus? The whole shebang should cost you around $368. That's:

512 Meg DDR RAM........$125 at Crucial.com
AMD 1.2Ghz at 266........$113 Newegg.com
Epox KT7A....................$130 Newegg.com
---------------------------
$368+shipping

Plus you can overclock nicely! >>



dont plan on ocing though straight outta box retail 1.4 , 259.00 at newegg
 
Lemme get this right, you'll happily pay an extra $140 for the 1.4GHz chip, rather than get a 1.2 which will almost certainly achieve 1.4GHz anyway??? Jesus, I can get an AXIA Y for $150 that gets 1.5GHz! You have some moral objection to overclocking or something?
 


<< Tualitin is a dead end. With AMD, socketA is gonna stick around for awhile (at least, that's what they've said). While you may be able to upgrade your current board to a Tualitin (assuming it supports it), after that, you've got nothing. With AMD, you should have at least another year (two?) or so of upgrading left without buying a new motherboard etc. >>



Please explain how the tualatin is dead, or atleast how you have the inside info to claim that. I'm not looking for an arguement, but you certainly shouldn't say things you don't know anything about. Intel is having a dilema. They're getting great results with the .13 die process and it's being said that they will be ramping up to 2GHz in the p4's. Since the tualatins are using the same process, the same 2GHz might be achievable. Intel has not yet decided on what they will do with the tualatin chips. IF they decide to let it be used to its full potential on the .13 die process, then how is it dead already? They only reason I can think that socket A would *last longer* is AMD has been slowing down (according to overclockers.com) with only a 1.7GHz chip supposedly out at the end of Q1 2002. AMD isn't having the same fortune Intel is with the .13mu process, atleast not yet.

In short, I'd wait to see what intel decides to do with tualatins before you declare it a dead end. Conversely, I'd wait to see what AMD does before you declare it long lasting. Thus far, Athlons have run a twice the wattage or more than a p3. I think they'll eventually have to do something about all that heat if they want to stay in the 1.7 + Ghz area.
 
The maximum frequency of a Tualitin on the same process technology as a P4, will always be less than that of the P4 (well, I'm considering .18 and smaller, as on a larger process, heat might be the limiting factor for the P4's clock speed). Tualitin is a P3 coppermine shrink/extension. The die has 512Kb L2 cache, and the desktop version will have 1/2 the cache disable, much like the Intel Celeron is now.

Tualitin is a dead end, because the maximum performance of a P4 on, the same process technology as a Tualitin, is greater than that of the Tualitin. We all know the P3 beats a P4 clock for clock. The P4 will ALWAYS clock CONSIDERABLY higher than a Tualitin on the same process. I think that the limiting factor of the P4 now is heat, and that Intel could probably release a 2ghz (in limited quantities, perhaps) right now, if given a more monstrous heatsink.

Intel has disclosed that Tualitin will require a new chipset revision in order to work. This means that the investment of all current VIA based motherboards (including those nice dually via ones), all i815, i810, i820, and i840) is a &quot;dead end&quot; upgrade path. It *should* work in old BX boards (oddly enough 😉 - what a great chipset that was...).

On .13 micron, I wouldn't be suprised to see Intel throw on a total of 512Kb of L2 cache, further distancing itself from the Tualitin in absolute perfomance (and on legacy code, I'd bet the Tualitin will score better on some benchmarks).



<< Thus far, Athlons have run a twice the wattage or more than a p3. I think they'll eventually have to do something about all that heat if they want to stay in the 1.7 + Ghz area. >>

I couldn't agree more.🙂

EDIT:

Wow, I was basing my opinion on the news that *only* the 440bx chipset would support Tualitin out of the box...but check out this: at aceshardware. Maybe the &quot;news&quot; about Tualitin needing a new chipset revision (due to minor bus changes) are wrong! If they're wrong, then Tualitin might become the Celeron..., which, infact, is something I've heard Intel planned to do! (position the P3 as the low end, and P4 as the high end).
 
The P4 is in many ways a deliberate backwards step in processor technology. By giving it a shoter pipeline (IE, making it perform less actual calculations per clock cycle) their is less heat produced, so they can ramp up the speed, although clock for clock it doesn't perform as well as an Athlon or P3. Personally, I think it's all down to marketing - a chip that's 2GHz will generally sell better than one at 1.5GHz, even if the 1.5GHz is actually faster.
 
First, there are a number of issues which are flat out contradictory to what happens in the real world. I think you were referring to the P4 when saying ?by giving it a shorter pipeline??well, they didn?t. They doubled the number of stages over the P3. This is completely contradictory by making a ?backwards step in processor technology?, as pipelining has been using extensively (in the x86 world) since the 486, and the pipeline has gotten longer every time to increase performance through higher frequencies.

However, you are right that fewer pipeline stages means less aggregate wattage to be dissipated. But, contrary to what you said, a shorter pipeline, it makes the chip less amenable to increases in clock speed. Clock for clock (both same bus, same cache, same frequency, etc), everything else the same, a chip with a shorter pipeline will outperform a chip with a longer pipeline. This is due to the branch mispredict penalties being smaller on the chip with the shorter pipeline.

I tend to agree that a bit of it is marketing. Higher clocked chips, in the past, tended to sell better (but historically, they also had better performance, so the impression almost makes sense).

Sure, Intel could have gone back to a 5 stage pipeline, reduced the branch mispredict quite a bit, required a simpler branch prediction algorithm with fewer entries, but then we?d be stuck at ~450mhz or so (this is just a guestimate ? the P55 made it >= 300mhz on the .25 micron). Don?t tell me that a 450Mhz Pentium with MMX is faster than a 1.7ghz P4!

You can go the reverse way, and instead of trying to go for high frequency, go for more IPC. Of course, this has its own problems. They burn up a lot of silicon in search of ILP that doesn?t always exist. You think that all the functional units on those sweet Athlon?s are always in use, even most of the time? They?re not. They?re not on a P3, and they?re not on a K6, K5, or even a Pentium MMX. Worst yet, the added complexity wickedly decreases the maximum frequency headroom. So going for the ?brainiac? (lots of functional units) hasn?t proven to be the best choice. Of course, a ?speedster? has it?s drawbacks too. It spends a lot of silicon (and power) on attaining high frequencies, often with large mispredict penalties.

The balance is somewhere in the middle. AMD claims that they are at the ?sweet spot,? but if you look at the power consumption, it?d show you they?re wrong too.

The Pentium 4 architecture will be around for years to come ? it has MANY forward looking technologies. Just because it doesn?t perform well today doesn?t mean that it won't perform far better in the future.

AMD spent a lot of silicon attempting to be compiler agnostic (well, as agnostic as a processor can be, which isn?t very), because they knew that few developers would compile just for them! They will (at least, that?s the hope) for Intel. They have in the past. The 486 with a short, single-issue pipeline performed better than a Pentium (in some cases, early on). The Ppro had terrible 16-bit performance: the Pentium trounced it! But for what the Ppro was intended for, who cares?

Okay, I?m done for now. If you still want to badmouth the P4, go ahead.

As for the rest of this thread, I?m going to say this:

Get a T-bird. It?s the best deal right now.
 
i have no need to oc and a extra 100 bucks isnt gonna hurt me . and 3 year warranty is just fine by me.


<< go AMD, but

WSP, in your other POST you said you already had one didn't you!?!? >>

nope we ordered one and am going to see how it goes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top